On Wednesday, 6 August 2014 at 05:53:55 UTC, Philippe Sigaud
wrote:
I see. I didn't know one could create an A.B 'outside'. I saw
inner types as Voldemort types, but that is true only for inner
structs in functions.
But we weren't creating them, we were copying them, no
constructors were used. If the struct is private that may follow
different rules as the struct can't leave the outer struct. hmmm
static and private... other keywords to try, but offhand it's
been a while i don't know if either would change the behavior.
Could just be inner scope limitations. Might be other
tags/modifiers...
I feel helpless :(
I already tried to propagate a ref through A's methods, but
that made a mess: I have lots of methods, which have all to
transmit this ref, only for *one* of them being able to update
it.
Thanks for you explanations :)
I'm now using classes and inner classes. I'm not fond of
classes, but that's working correctly.
I'm not sure if it would help, but sometimes if you reverse the
logic you might get what you want by putting the data in B
instead of A.
The example coming to mind is from the game 'Mark of the Ninja'.
In order to speed up and get their code to work how they wanted,
instead of having guards listen for sounds (which would be a
constant pinging to look for sounds and other effects), the sound
listened for the guards and notified them...
So if the data is in B, A can access B's data; Although if you
have another class C next to B, then communication between them
becomes more of a pain probably...
Just something to consider
